In general introduction of this program, I will discuss it by the function and mission groupings that are used within the Department of Defense for all programing.

We are requesting $55.8 million in new authorization for continental air and missile defense forces. The major item, for which we request $45 million is, classified and will be discussed in executive session. It is our goal to continue our program of improvements to the NIKEHERCULES system to increase tactical effectiveness. This request proposes to continue the program to provide protective construction at firing sites and control centers.

For general purpose forces, those combat units and their direct combat support elements either deployed overseas or stationed in the United States, we are requesting $78.3 million. Major items will provide: Aviation support facilities at installations within the United States and overseas; land acquisition at Forts Riley and Carson to provide needed additional training and maneuver space for the Strac divisions at these stations; troop housing complexes for the Strac divisions at Forts Hood and Carson; and unit facilities and improvements to our logistical posture in Korea. I would like to emphasize the importance of the troop housing complexes.

Senator STENNIS. Just what do you mean by troop housing complexes?

General SHULER. Mr. Chairman, this is a program that we brought to the Congress about 3 years ago in which we built a regimental complex, that is 10 326-man barracks, the messes, and the supporting facilities within the area. There are about 4,000 troops concerned in one of these regimental complexes. Because this can be done in one contract essentially, we can do the whole thing cheaper costwise than if we did this piecemeal over the years.

Senator STENNIS. Is that the only virtue it has?

General SHULER. No, sir. It allows us to get a completed unit so that it is fully supporting all at one time when it is completed. Senator STENNIS. Colonylike; it is complete within itself?

General SHULER. Yes, sir; that is correct. I will present those as we go through the program.

Senator STENNIS. All right. Could you present that as well as other matters in a unit group, and repeatable items as we call them sometimes.

General SHULER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Are you able to present it that way?

General SHULER. Yes, sir.

A large portion of the temporary World War II facilities I discussed earlier are troop housing facilities especially at our large training centers and division stations.

The Army feels that the continued replacement of inadequate temporary troop housing and facilities by complex-sized increments is the most economical, efficient, and satisfactory answer to our urgent need for facilities to support the soldier. These barracks complexes provide in addition to baracks, the messhalls; administration, supply, and classroom buildings; troop chapels and unit dispensaries; and motor parks that are required to provide a completely balanced increment of such construction.

Our third category, airlift and sealift forces, contains a small request of $2.2 million to enable the Army to relocate activities from

Fort Mason to Oakland Army Terminal in consonance with the Department of Defense's program to increase efficiency and reduce costs through consolidations wherever feasible.

For research and development we request $50.9 million. About $32 million of this request will provide facilities to support the test and evaluation of the NIKE X missile system upon which a decision concerning future deployment of the antimissile system will be based. Also included are projects for a clinical research building at Edgewood Arsenal and range instrumentation facilities at the White Sands Missile Range.

Our final subdivision is for general support, the broad base for our training, supply, maintenance, medical services, headquarters, communications network, and Army Security Agency requirements. This grouping includes requirements at the greatest number of stations and of the most varied nature. For general support we request $200.5 million in new authorization. We are requesting $20.6 million for construction at the U.S. Military Academy-$18.7 million of this supports the recently authorized increase in the strength of the Corps of Cadets. We request $19 million for a classified Department of Defense project. The following are some of the other large items: troop housing complexes for recruit training units at Forts Dix, Gordon, Jackson, and Leonard Wood; replacement of two deteriorated, inadequate old hospitals-Letterman General Hospital and Fort Huachuca Hospital, and replacement of old academic facilities for the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pa.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the details of individual line items, I would like to review the status of previous authorization granted by the Congress. At the end of fiscal year 1958 the Army had $368 million in unfinanced authorization which was carried over into fiscal year 1959. The automatic repeal provisions that are a part of each authorization act since fiscal year 1958 have minimized this authorization carryover. These repeal provisions have been so effective that as of October 1, 1964, there will remain only $10.1 million of authorization for specific line items that are not covered by the present fiscal year 1965 program or prior year's funds. Since all the projects in our request in this year's authorization bill are also included in the fiscal year 1965 appropriations request, it is apparent that we are keeping our authorization carryover to a minimum.

My presentation today does not include family housing construction for the Army. As all Department of Defense family housing authorization is contained in title V of the bill before you, it will be discussed by family housing witnesses during your hearings on that part of the bill.

The detailed project justifications to support the facilities which we are requesting are contained in three books, one of which is solely for classified project justifications. Copies have been furnished to the committee counsel for each member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement on the military construction, Army authorization.

I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have, or to see to it that the answer is provided.

Senator STENNIS. You are going to present the line items now? General SHULER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. All right, are there any questions before we go into the item-by-item presentation now by General Shuler? Senator Cannon, do you have any questions?

Senator CANNON. I think I would prefer to wait until we get to the line items.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Young?

Senator YOUNG. I am just wondering, General, about the item for Korea. Isn't that a place where we could cut back instead of increasing the authorization? Isn't it a fact that the South Korean Army that we have been training or supposedly training over the years is superior in numbers to the North Korean Army? I am just wondering if that isn't a place where we ought to bring back a great number of soldiers instead of keeping them indefinitely, because there hasn't been any fighting there, and we can airlift if necessary. I question the justification of that large sum of money for Korea and I would like you to elaborate on that in the record.

General SHULER. Senator, we of course will defend each line item. Many of them are classified, but I would like to disqualify myself as able to speak on the relative strengths of the South and North Koreans or whether we should bring any of our divisions home.

I will say that there have been studies going on and the studies are still going on on this matter. But our position is this. These American men and officers are over there. They are in the line. They are there in case trouble starts. Their facilities are deplorable, sir. They are the same old quonset huts that were put in there originally. Many of these fiscal year 1965 requested facilities are tactical type facilities that will improve our tactical posture in Korea. Last year we lost our entire request. It was taken out by the Congress, and I would certainly hope, sir, that this committee would see its way clear to give us these items because we really do need them, Senator.

Senator YOUNG. I agree that is an extreme hardship post but there hasn't been any fighting there for a long time. We are supposedly training the South Korean army, which is superior by many thousands, according to what I have read in newspapers, by perhaps 150,000, over the North Korean forces. Is this a bottomless pit? Hasn't the time come, instead of throwing more money in, that we ought to consider bringing back thousands of soldiers from there?

General SHULER. As I say, sir, I am not qualified to comment on that. I am sure that this was covered in the posture hearings. I do know that as far as any decision goes, we have two divisions over there. They are in the line. Something could happen any time, and all I am pleading for, sir, is a halfway decent set of facilities for them to live in, and to operate from, while they are over there.

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, General. I am going to study that matter thoroughly. And I know our subcommittee will.

Senator STENNIS. That is a good question, Senator. I am glad you raised it. The policy question of staying there is what concerns you. I don't think we are there for training, except incidentally. We are there to hold the line. We are the only one who can do it. Personally, I think we will be there for a generation. Thank you very much for your questions.

As the subcommittee members know, we take these line items up item by item. This year we won't overlook anything, but we are going to have to move along as fast as we can, in the limited time.

General, do you have any items that you present as a unit or group which are repeated at various bases?

If you are asking for a certain type of barracks at 15 or 20 areas scattered over the country, could you present them all in a group, which would help us?

General SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I can group some of these that are repetitive, and I think barracks and bachelor officer's quarters would be. I would ask permission to do that when we come to the first item in that category, if that would be all right, sir.

Senator STENNIS. That is a good suggestion. Proceed.

General SHULER. I would like to take a few seconds, sir, to put in the record the plight of the Army on its World War II physical plant. I am only talking about our permanent hard core stations in the 50 States. We have a situation facing us, sir, where we built these during the war. We built them in a rush. We built many of them with green lumber. We threw together what we could. We expected a 5-year life out of them. We have been in them now over 20 years. We are trying to replace them as we can in the requests made of the Congress, and Congress has certainly gone along with our requests in this category. But we are faced with about a $3.6 billion future replacement cost of these items. The only point I want to make, sir, is that if we don't do this each year in a reasonable fashion, we are going to come to a time when these structures are going to be falling down around our ears, and the job is going to be so costly during a relatively short span of time that we are going to be in trouble.

This explains to a large degree why the Army's program this year, our request this year, is larger than last year. We have convinced the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of Defense that we do have a real problem here that we must increase this replacement rate. So I did want to mention that, sir, for the record.

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

CONTINENTAL ARMY COMMAND

(FIRST ARMY)

FORT DEVENS, MASS.

Senator STENNIS. Fort Devens, Mass., "Community facilities,” $681,000.

General SHULER. The first item that we come to is, sir, at Fort Devens in Massachusetts on page 2. The item is a post chapel with religious education facilities. The justification is on page 3. Senator STENNIS. Proceed, General.

General SHULER. This installation, sir, at Fort Devens, has no permanent chapel facilities. The existing World War II chapels were built without religious educational facilities and have deteriorated beyond any point of economic maintenance. This would give us the post chapel we need at Fort Devens.

Senator STENNIS. You are not planning to abandon Fort Devens; are you?

General SHULER. No, sir; I will state at this time that every item in this program, sir, has been gone over from that standpoint.

Senator STENNIS. Why haven't you been asking for a chapel before? General SHULER. We have asked for chapels in the program each year, Mr. Chairman, and the size of the budget and our other requirements have just not allowed us to program them as fast as we would like to.

Senator STENNIS. All right; I think you have made out a case.
Senator Cannon?

Senator CANNON. This replaces three existing chapels at the present time?

General SHULER. Sir, this is a post chapel and we would tear down three of the temporary chapels when this is completed.

We still have a requirement for five unit chapels. These are the smaller chapels in the troop unit area, but this item is the post chapel.

Senator CANNON. How do you get along at the present time with these three chapels? You say you don't have the facilities in them. What are you doing?

General SHULER. Sir, we are using these other temporary chapels that are deteriorated, as I said, beyond economic repair, and if we don't build a new chapel, they are going to fall down before we get it built. That is our request.

Senator CANNON. Do you have a priority list of chapels, similar to hospitals, that you present, or do you just examine each base?

General SHULER. Sir, we master plan each base. The base commander and his staff master plan the base. By this I mean they know their mission, they know their strength. They then know their requirements on into the distant future, and they turn in their priorities which are according to the way they feel their need arises. There might have been something last year at this station that was more important than the chapel, but this year this is the item that they feel they need most.

Senator CANNON. Does the Department itself establish a list of priorities, for example, as you do in hospitals when you come in with the budget?

General SHULER. No, sir.

Senator CANNON. Do you say "These are our priority items. If we are going to have chapels we need five in this priority." General SHULER. No, sir.

Senator CANNON. You do not do that?

General SHULER. We don't establish priority in chapels. We do on hospitals. The chief of chaplains has a good idea of his chapel replacement needs.

Senator CANNON. This chapel was not in the request that came over to us last year, was it?

General SHULER. No, sir.

Senator CANNON. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Cannon, I have heard a lot of lobbying for hospitals but I never have heard any for a chapel. I believe they are the first rejected when it comes to cutting down on a bill, but I don't remember that we have ever declined one here. Next item. Fort Dix., N.J., "Hospital facilities, and troop housing,' $18,890,000.